tv [untitled] June 22, 2014 1:30am-2:01am PDT
it is only 1.5 million dollars and if you look at our surplus, we are going to bring over 21 million over budget, for charges for service and we are adjusting our budget obviously next year. but the 1.5 million is not all that much money, and it shows, as i said, earlier, a good faith that addressing the finance and the legal jeopardy in collecting too much money. >> okay, any other comments from the commissioners? >> okay. >> thank you. >> seeing none. >> is there public comment on this item? >> >> okay. >> and is there a motion to approve it? >> i make a motion to..., what is it? >> to support the recommendation, the ordinance, as written. >> and i second that. >> there is a motion and a he
second to approve the item. let's do a roll call vote. >> vice president mar. >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner melgar. >> yes. >> commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> commissioner walker. >> no. >> that motion carries, 4 to 1. >> item 6,discussion and possible action regarding an ordinance amending the building code to authorize use of the repair and demolition fund specified in building code, section 102a.13, to address costs associated with private property owner responsibility to stabilize telegraph hill, as part of the rock slope improvement project, and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. >> >> good morning, this is the last piece of legislation that was submitted with the budget.
and the repairing demolition fund as i mentioned during the presentation, is used to address unsafe situations, or emergency situations. currently that fund has a little over 1 and a quarter million dollars in it and the budget does propose to add about 5 million dollars, to the fund for future projects. and it could come up. and the property on the tell graph hill, and it is just below the tower near the street, is a steep hill, that has been having problems with rock slides over the last several years. and the city has done several different ways of trying to address that issue with fence and debris removal and protection and that kind of thing but when it rains there is often rock falls in this area. and so, the property under discussion is kind of has joint ownership and there are three piece and parcels that comprise the hill that have a problem
and dpw and the department of recreation and parks, own most of the land and part of the land is owned by a private owner. and so, the cost of project is $5 and a quarter million dollars and dpw and rec park are going to pay the vast majority of that cost and what they are asking is that dbi take care of the private owner portion of that cost. and the which is about 1.8 million dollars. and so, the reason for the code amendment, is that the code for the recurring demolition funds says that the director of dbi can use this fund to address unsafe or conditions, if they determine that it is an emergency, or a very good need for the city, the problem with the code is that it says that the department can do that up to 50 percent of the value of a property being worked on.
because this is a steep hill, there is actually not much value in the land, it is only worth about $12,000 and so for dbi to partner with the other city departments in fixing this hazard, if there is a large rock fall it could harm people in the street or the condo complex that is underneath. and they would like dbi to use their parent demolition fund to take care of the property owner portion of the repair. and we will bill the property owner and they will pay a portion of it probably, and likelihood we will not get some of this money back, normally what happens with the repair and demolition fund, if the private owner can't fix it, we will fix it and bill them and they can't pay it, but then we will own the property, when the property is owns, we recoup the cost and it is in the fund in a resolving fund, we will not get
the money back that is why they are leading to amend the code to allow us to spend more than 50 percent of the value of the property for the stabilization project. >> commissioner walker? >> so, the property valuation is only 12,000 for the part that needs to be reinforced? or for the entire lot of the private property? >> the entire lot of the private property is valued at $12,000. >> really? is there anything built on it? >> no. >> nothing. >> commissioner? >> walker? it is an empty lot and it is a steep hill, and someone put a sign on there. dbi sign and then it will be worth some money. >> is it attached to some other piece of property or just a piece of property that is just on the hill? >> it is on the hill with dpw
and also (inaudible) land use. >> so, i am sorry. >> go ahead. >> and it is not a buildable lot. >> it is not a buildable lot. >> that makes sense, just like the $12,000 was confusing. >> >> but it needs, it is part of the whole plan of closing up maeb more pieces of property and protecting other properties. >> i remember this, what, 18 years ago i was respond to a rock slide and the rock is coming condition the condo. >> i know i was there. >> and that is the problem. we don't fix it now, we could have a bigger problem and it will be coming back to us because hitting... >> yeah, i get that. if we do this, does that slice of land then become our property? >> because i don't want to have to go through it, not that it matters but we should not have to... >> it should be able to do what we want with it. >> probably on the property and i know that eventually we are
going to own it. >> not that we want that. good point. >> yeah. >> all right. >> any other comments or questions from commissioners? >> that is a good plan that we are spending this much money on the property why don't we go ahead and secure the property? >> yeah. >> that is just a question for... >> i can pass that information on to the mayor's office. my understanding at this point is that we are not. but that could be subject to change. >> that would be great, if that could be... i mean ultimately if we lean against it will be ours. >> well, it seems that we make... and if we are spending a million and a half and it is only worth $12,000 leaving it, and it will be ours. >> unless somebody else has a loan before us. >> yeah. >> is there any further
commissioner comments? >> no. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> move the item. >> second. >> we move and seconded. >> okay. motion and second. >> roll call vote. >> vice president mar. >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner melgar. >> yes. >> commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> commissioner walker. >> yes. >> and the motion carries unanimously. item 8? >> discussion and possible action regarding supervisor's chiu's proposed ordinance file number 1 30374, requiring permit consultant to register as lobbyists with the ethics commission. >> as you know, it asked two weeks ago and then yesterday, it was voted on for the second
time, and it did not come to us before and i know that there was a lot of changes, that were made up until, the time that we hit the board of supervisor and they all directly effect us. and so, i wanted to, you know, hear it and then also get, the staff's perspective with how it will effect the efficiency of the department, and i think that you know it is unfortunate that we didn't get it but it is what it is and i think that it is, i think that it is also vastly improved because a lot of people, you know, and that were lighting up the supervisors phone, with comments. >> i see. >> so, do you want to brief us on what the legislation is right now because it passed yesterday, the full board. >> right. well, as supervisor, or commissioner melgar has said
earlier and i mentioned earlier, the reality is that this requires additional steps by permit consultants with a certain volume of business to make quarterly reports and register as permit consultants whether they are a lobbyist and that was one change that i think that the supervisor heard it very clearly from some of the permit consultants themselves who i understand have had multiple meetings with him. and so i think that the objective here was to make sure that people who are doing significant business with the city are registered and that they filed these quarterly reports with the ethics commission. and that said, i think that does not require much accounting from dbi's point of view, other than we will serve as a verification, and we already do this, and we have our way, through our permit
tracking system of knowing when a permit consultant is working on a project any way that they fill out a form and they have been doing that since about, the year 2000. and so, it is not new information, we continue to have that information. >> we don't have any part in this, really, at all, it really does not effect, dbi's operation. >> well, i refer to the deputy directors if they see the impact but i am not aware of any direct impact. >> as far as i know, i don't think that i recall anything. the only report by them, only. >> the ethics department that they file with, correct? >> that is correct. >> and really it is beyond the ethics to monitor these reports and make sure that they get them and i understand that there is a financial penalty if you don't make the quarterly filings and therefore, it will be up to the ethics commission
to collect those. >> so i have it and the final legislations up on the system, the last time that i request checked and so dbi has no responsibility if they don't register? because that was one of the points of contentions and so that means that... >> and it is taxing. >> it is if some person does not or refuses to do it or whatever, we still accept the permit application, and you know? >> i guess that i can look a little more carefully at that final version to see if there is essentially we would not issue a permit if they have not registered but i don't recall that language being said but i could be wrong about it. >> it seems to me that for other, other people who have to do reporting and whatnot, it is a fine, it is basically a fine and you can't operate in that capacity any more. but that is not our business, it is ethics. >> i have a question, just in
terms of tracking. because there is a dollar amount in terms of the amount of business which i see is the cost of the permit. and so, because we will have to track that in terms of the permit. >> and that is self-reporting. but a lot of permit expediters and do they pull the permit in their own name or in the name of the owner and we will capture and that is the question that we will capture the actual amount of business that they do with the city? >> well, i believe that if they do it in the name of the client. as opposed to in their own name, but, we could go through the form, and we could ask, mis, for example, to take that million dollar threshold and see how many permit consultants turn up on those that level of projects and as i said, we already have had this data in
the system and it will just be a matter of filtering it in order. and i am not aware that we are obligated to do that, but, obviously we could. >> and so each time, when an expediter, even if they file the permit in the name of the project owner their name is on it and we keep track of who. >> yeah. and in that form, yeah. >> and so we have their name. >> yeah. >> okay. >> okay. >> okay. >> and as i said, unless, inspections or the permit was used, you know, something different, and i don't think that this will have an immediate impact on us. >> but i will say, and i will say to your point, commissioner about whether or not we are supposed to hold up issuing a permit, unless we know that they have registered or filed a report. >> thank you. >> that was my greatest concern, because you know, despite that there are, you know, a few out lieers in the
field and i think that the knowledge of the process and that the expediters have that makes for more efficient running of the process. and so, if we were going to be responsible for you know, enforcing that or not, or taking those players out at night, to impede how we run the business. >> yes. >> but if it is not there, then, you know, that is... >> right, i will double check that. >> thank you. >> sir? >> what is the difference between language? permit consultant verses lobbyist? >> well, i was referring to the permit consultants but i believe that their objection was that they do provide a service for people who may not be as familiar with the process ha one goes through, that they are not actually lobbying to influence a particular out come. >> okay. okay. >> good point, okay.
>> thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and public comment on item 8? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i want to start off first with acknowledging after 35 years of practice, i have come to terms that most people are quick to complain but not fast to compliment. >> and could i get your name. >> patrick boskvitz. >> i want to compliment the building department for doing a great job, very challenging and people come here and complain and i want to comment on the person coming in a few of weeks ago and complaining about the public comment and i thought about getting up and commenting that was inappropriate but i decided free speech, and to encourage that conversation, by commenting during public comment would have just prolonged it. and so first i want to thank the building department for
doing incredibly hard job. now, the expedite error permit consultant legislation, i am a structural engineer and i believe that most of what i do is exempt because i am expediting my own drawings, because after doing this as long as i have, i am very good at being able to not only prepare plans, as a license structure ital engineer, but, to go and get the permit, and it is very complicated, lots of challenges, lots of integration, between the building department, the fire department, the bureau street use and so the permits do fill a very important role. but the legislation is passed. and we need to embrace it. and we need to work with the building department on how to implement this. such that it does not become a roadblock to getting permits. or it does not create any more of a roadblock than it needs, so i will strongly suggest, that there will be a workshop
between the senior people at the building department and the people like me in terms of how to process this paperwork and not create a deterrent where you are sitting with a plan checker, and you are writing down notes, that he is going, what are you doing? i am sending this information to the ethics commission, if you think that you are going to scare somebody, that is the kind of conversation that we don't want to have. we want to have our transparent process, that moves it all. and again, i do want to suggest, that since it is the law of the land we have some type of get together, on how to make it work. >> thank you. >> any further public comment? >> hi, commissioners camawitz and as you know, the permitting situation in san francisco, is getting more and more complicated every day and there is a new code coming out and we have issues with the planning department and the dpw, and the
health department and no matter where you go and trying to advocate for that is just amazed. and i had just one the other day and just actually this morning, for a dpw issue that the committee performance permit to do the work in the back of the property and they need it any way because we don't know if a truck wants out of the side and might crack us so we need to have this stuff and so it is complicated and sort of a process, and i will just say, and we need to embrace this and realize that this is something that is important a service that people in this business provide. and they really, really do. and so, we would like to work with the director and you guys do a great job and you guys, and i think that we are blessed that we have much a good department, and how we do get permits quickly most of the time. and so, on the whole, i think that, and as it turned out that if there is, and it is good. because at the beginning it was
really could have been, really a hassle with, you know, the property owner, and saying hey, could you get my permit for me and have to register as a lobbyist and so that would have been a mess and i think that it will all turn out and that is decent and so thank you. >> good morning, i am expediter and i am also the contractor and the meeting that we have, the supervisor, and they want to transparency and i think this is the best transparency that it can have for the information and i don't, and you can go to it and it can go on-line and get all of the information of who i met and who is a plan checker, and why they are looking for us to be the adjust or and all of the information is here, and they
are asking for transparentcy and you can't get better than this, and the department has done a great job and i don't know what the supervisor wants us to register for? what is the reason that we are going to register? and in fact i have one of my co-worker and he does, he does it and he does the drawing and he works for the outfit and his wife comes over there with the baby she is carries the baby and goes through the process of permitting because he can't come all of the time and making a living someplace else and so his wife is coming and so if she has to go register, with the baby, and it is very, very ugly for the person to go through the register, you know, if the baby carriage to go and get the permit for it, and it is will move the deck or replacement in-kind and it is unreal what we are hearing and going through the process every day and obviously, you can ask, anybody about us, in the building department, and all of the expediters and it will open, and we will have
everything exposed and so, what i, and i don't understand is what we are looking for is that it is a sad, and if you have to go through the process, we will find a way to, you know, to do it, somehow, and we will have to find a way and this is unfortunately putting the other people, in trouble, and not us, and we are doing our own, and we know that we have been doing it for ten or 15 or 20 years and it is going to be difficult for the new generation or family, or husband and wife they want to pull the permit and i have a client and she was there, and she was crying. in front of the plan checker because she could not handle it. you have to take it out of the place because she was crying, and she was literally crying. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any further public comment? >> seeing none, item 9, update on dbi fee study?
>> hello again. so, with the fee study, the dbi is contracted with a consultant and mgt of america, to do the fee study, and we have two of the consultants here today to give you an update on the process. so i want to turn this over to jeff wake field and ruban reben. >> jeff wake field with mgt of america. the items that i will be covering include the purpose of
our study and the methodology that we employ for both the cost analysis and the bench marking analysis. the project milestones, those that we have completed and those still in progress. primary findings, and we have a sample of the cost analysis results to share with you today, for the plumbing inspection division. and finally, recommendations and next steps. the purpose of this fee study is to provide the staff with cost information for each category and a survey data to give you a sense of how your fees stack up against the other jurisdictions and the fees over time to be sure that the fees are legally defencable and in the following slides we will look at a few examples of this cost information and the survey
data, and key findings. >> the methodology of the cost analysis can be summarized in the 7 steps. in the first step, we developed a catalog of all of the fee user services and this comes from your master fee schedule and in step two, we calculate the direct cost for each fee category. and to calculate the cost of personnel, we interview staff that are directly involved with providing each service and we asked them how much time on average is required to perform each service and not the best case scenario or the worst, but the average time required and we take that average time requirement and we multiple it
for the salary and benefit rate. next we incorporate a factor for operating costs in three, we integrate the incorrect costs and for each staff member we back out some that is not billable, holiday, sick, vacation, meeting time, break time, and these are costs that are not billable and so, by backing this out, we fully burdened, and we fully burdened the salary and benefit rate. and next, we incorporate the vision and indirect costs and this is primarily supervision and clerical staff in each division and next we incorporate the dbi wide incorrect costs and incorrect division and the department such as the director's office and the payroll and personnel. and last, we incorporate
general funds support charges for general funds, services provided. and at this point, we have identified the full cost of each fee category, and then in step four, we compare the total cost, direct and indirect, to the current fee schedule. and in step five, we incorporate annual unit volume which is lows us to project the annual figures and in step six we compare the annual costs within each division to the annual projected revenues. >> and lastly, in step seven, this is where, we currently are in the study, we cross checked projected revenues, against actual revenues, received. and where there is a difference, the investigate the difference and we reconcile. and as i said, we are still, currently in this process.
the next slide gives us a, this is just, and gives you an example of one of our data collection sheets. this is for the plumbing inspection division. and the very first item on their fee schedule. and you can see, from this interview, that the plumbing inspector, spends 25 minutes, doing a, or doing the various inspections required for a single residential unit. and a senior plumbing inspector spends five minutes, adjusting schedules, and five minutes on issue resolution, which really could be just about anything that could be required for that permit. and lastly, the clerical staff and then 7 minutes on the intake and 7 minutes, setting up the schedule. >> and so this is just an
example to give you an idea of how we identify that time for each fee category. the next slide, was... and it shows you that once we have all of the various time information and we apply it against the staff and fully burdened labor rates and we presented plumbing inspection division for you, and you can see that for the various staff categories we have identified the annual salary and benefit, we then divide by the billable number of hours to come up with the salary and benefit rate. we add in the various layers of indirect costs and the department wide and then the city wide support, and excuse me, that should be dbi wide support and we arrive at a
total fully burdened cost for each staff member. >> >> the methodology for the bench marking analysis is really three at the points and the first step at the beginning of the engagement and we discuss with the staff, which jurisdictions they would like to the bench marked against. and we selected five jurisdictions and each jurisdiction mgt has conducted it and very similar fee study for the building departments recently. and so, we have it on these five cities and they are come parable cities and we have the good contacts in each. and next, the quantitative survey, this is a traditional fee study,